55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019 55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza Ian Douglas, B.Sc [email protected] 30 June 2019 Version 1.0.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3263928 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Abstract This is a companion paper to and reliant on “Diskerfery and the Alignment of the Four Main Giza Pyramids” (Douglas, 2019 [1]). Following the geometric alignments shown in that paper, we now present the astronomical design plan with 23 stars. There is a perfect alignment with three stars, very close alignment with others, and close alignment with other prominent stars in the area. We propose that this was done to provide a date for the construction of Giza. The alignment occurs at circa 55,550BCE. Keywords: Giza, pyramids, alignment, archaeoastronomy. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Methodology, notation and accuracy 3. Overview of existing stellar explanations 4. The Quadruple Points 5. The Big Dipper hint 6. The stellar alignment 7. Round 2 8. Comparative chronology 9. Discussion 1 55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019 10. Acknowledgements 11. Bibliography 1. Introduction “Man fears time, but time fears the pyramids.” Arab proverb “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes “There are no contradictions. If you find one, check your premises.” Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Hamlet Dedicated to the memory of Galileo Galilei. In 1737–1738, Danish explorer Frederic Louis Norden explored Egypt, taking careful notes and making many drawings. His journals were published posthumously in English [2] and French [3], where he had this to say about the pyramids: “It appears probable to me, that the origin of the pyramids preceded that of the hieroglyphics. And as they no longer had the knowledge of those characters, at the time the Persians made the conquest of Egypt, we must absolutely throw back the first epocha of the pyramids into times so remote in antiquity, that vulgar chronology would have a difficulty to fix the æra of them. If I conjecture that the pyramids, even the latest, have been raised before they had the use of hieroglyphics, I do not assert it without foundation. Who can persuade himself, that the Egyptians would have left such superb monuments, without the least hieroglyphical inscription? They, who, as one may observe every where, were profuse of hieroglyphics, upon all the edifices of any consideration? Now we perceive none, neither in the inside, nor on the outside of 2 55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019 the pyramids, not even upon the ruins of the temples of the second and third pyramid: Is not this a proof, that the origin of the pyramids is antecedent to that of the hieroglyphics, which are however considered as the first characters they made use of in Egypt?” To date, no one has provided a suitable explanation for this observation. Instead, we are left with the conclusion that, as Robert Bauval says, the language of the pyramids is mathematics. 2. Notation, accuracy and methodology Please see the companion paper (Diskerfery and the Alignment of the Four Main Giza Pyramids) for discussion on notation, accuracy and methodology. [1] 3. Overview of existing stellar explanations There are two well-known theories regarding stellar alignments of the Giza plateau. The most famous is The Orion Correlation Theory [4] (OCR) from Robert Bauval, while the Cygnus theory [5], from Andrew Collins and Rodney Hale, is the best-known alternative. Each uses three stars from the constellations of Orion and Cygnus respectively as an explanation for the alignment of the three centres of the main pyramids. Figure 1 shows the Orion correlation. 3 55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019 Figure 1: Orion Correlation Theory (redrawn from Orofino and Bernardini 2016 [8]) Figure 2 shows the Cygnus correlation. 4 55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019 Figure 2: Cygnus correlation (redrawn from Orofino and Bernardini 2016 [8]) There has been a mixed reaction to these two theories. Initially the scientific community rejected the Orion theory, with Fairall’s [6] and Krup’s critiques [7] being the most well known. Alternative researchers found the Orion theory compelling. The Cygnus theory also struggled to find main-stream scientific approval. In 2015/6, Vincenzo Orofino and Paolo Bernardini [8] showed that indeed there was a likely correlation for Orion but not for Cygnus. 5 55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019 This led the authors of the Cygnus theory to publish a further paper [9] showing more alignments between Cygnus and the three pyramids, including what happens as the stars set, when viewed from a suitable vantage point. Another author (which other references [10] name as Alice Smith rather than Wayne Herschel) published an opinion [11] in support of Orion and against Cygnus. Herschel also has his own re-interpretation [12] of the Orion correlation, which does the alignment differently and includes other stars like Sirius and Aldebaran, which map to other pyramids along the Nile. Conversely, Careaga [13] found the Cygnus correlation better suited to the Broaddus site in Kentucky, than Orion. Both the Orion and Cygnus theories rely on linkages to what we understand of ancient religions, involving various deities or possible/probable religious practices. They both also operate around the currently accepted 4th to 5th dynasty period, with Orion possibly also referencing a post-Younger-Dryas time, especially with the linking to the Sphinx. A new theory from Matt Sibson [14] suggests an alignment with three stars from Taurus. This also has connections to Egyptian religion/mythology (Orion : Taurus = Hunter : Bull), and uses a date around 2580 BCE. If I understood the suggestion in the video correctly, Sibson identifies Aldebaran (α Tauri) for Khufu, θ1 Tauri for Khafre, and Prima Hyadum (ɣ Tauri) for Menkaure, as shown in Fig. 3. 6 55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019 Figure 3: Taurus correlation c. 2580 BCE drawn by author from description and video by Sibson However, you can get a better match using λ Tauri for Khafre, and ѯ Tauri for Menkaure, as shown in Fig 3a. 7 55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019 Figure 3a: Alternate correlation for Taurus circa 2580 BCE, by author Even though this is rather good, matching two stars perfectly and the third very closely, it ignores the fourth pyramid and must thus be discounted. It’s also at the time of the dynastic Egyptians, which does not help us solve the unsolvable puzzles. 8 55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019 Sibson does point out that it is relatively easy to find 3 stars that closely align to the three pyramid centres, given that there are so many stars to choose from. Pankovic et al. also find a connection between Taurus and the three pyramids. [15] Spedicato [10] proposes instead a correlation between the three pyramids of Giza, and three volcanoes on Mars. Yasseen [16] sees Giza as just one spot in a much larger star alignment similar to Herschel above. There are two main criticisms regarding stellar alignments: 1. The sizes of the pyramids do not match the brightness of the stars. 2. In the case of Orion, Bauval was accused of “turning the sky upside down.” Regarding (1), this is an artificial linkage. For all we know, the sizes may be related to what the designers thought was the distance of the star from Earth. Or for example, say each star was associated with a deity, and the pyramids somehow reflected the importance of said deity. There are no grounds for insisting that the size of the pyramid should correspond to the brightness of the star. Regarding (2), who are we to say how others may map the heavens to earth? So this is not a valid objection either. 4. The Quadruple Points and Big Dipper hint The alignment we propose features fifteen stars initially, some of which are not on a pyramid, but elsewhere on the Giza plateau. There may have been something there a long time ago. Instead of having a physical object to refer to, we instead show how these points, which map to various prominent stars, have analogues in the grid system. The grid system is based on the edges and centres of the four pyramids. We show how these specific locations, shown in Fig. 3b, namely C1, F2, G4, G11, H6 and Z2 connect mathematically to the centres of the four pyramids. This is to provide a reason for including them in the alignment, and to deal with objections that certain stars are not included. There are a few other stars (e.g. Edasich) that I ignored because they were too far from an intersection point to justify including. 9 55,550 BCE and the 23 Stars of Giza I Douglas 2019 Figure 3b: Other points needed to align with the stars We start with G4, which is where I started. I was trying to find an explanation for the alignment of the three pyramids, and finding that G4 connected to the three centres via π, e, and πφe, was one of those light-bulb moments. When I later added the fourth pyramid, adding √τ to the mix came as another of those little jokes that the designers seem to love.